Allen v. Yates et al

Filing 99

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay ; granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Dismiss; terminating party Dewayne Walters in his official capacity only (trl, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DONALD ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. JARED YATES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV-08-215-FHS

OPINION AND ORDER On June 11, 2008, Plaintiff, Donald Allen, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting constitutional violations Plaintiff resulting claims he from was an alleged by attack upon his Jared person Yates during the course of his detention in the Sequoyah County Jail. attacked Defendant, ("Yates"), a Detention Officer with the Sequoyah County Jail, while Yates was processing Plaintiff following his arrest on June 25, 25, 2006. 2006, Defendant, and brought Dewayne him to Walters the ("Walters"), County is Jail the for Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer who arrested Plaintiff on June Sequoyah processing. Yates later and Plaintiff alleges Walters observed Yates attack him that the such failure constitutes a violation in of his

and that Walters failed to intervene to prevent the attack by Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. invoked Court's supplemental Plaintiff

jurisdiction

Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 38), filed on October 28, 2008, by asserting state law claims for negligence, respondeat superior, outrage, and assault and battery. 1 Walters, individually and in his official capacity as an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer, has

filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 66) seeking the dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint.1 issues have been fully briefed by the parties. the parties' is respective appropriate submissions, as to all the dismissal claims Court The Having considered concludes against asserted

Walters, with the exception of Plaintiff's section 1983 claims against Walters in his individual capacity. Walters contends Plaintiff's state law claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In this regard, Walters relies on the following provision under Oklahoma law: All actions filed by an inmate or by a person based upon facts that occurred while the person was an inmate in the custody of one of the following: a. b. c. the State of a contractor of Oklahoma, a political of the State Oklahoma of the State or subdivision of Oklahoma,

to include, but not be limited to, the revocation of earned credits and claims for injury to the rights of another, shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action shall have accrued.

On February 21, 2009, Plaintiff amended his Amended Complaint to properly identify Jimmy "Barker" as a defendant as opposed to the misidentified Jimmy "Baxter." Thus, the relevant Complaint before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 78). 2

1

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(11).

Plaintiff's state law claims Plaintiff was an to his claims to

are barred by application of this provision.2 June 25, 2006, when the all actions of the giving facts

inmate in the custody and control of the Sequoyah County Jail on rise which occurred. Indeed, give rise

Plaintiff's state law claims occurred while he was an inmate in the custody of the Sequoyah County Jail. uncontested oversight of the of that the of the institutional County entity the is Sequoyah Oklahoma. Jail, it Furthermore, it is vested with the Sequoyah County that

Criminal Justice Authority, constitutes a political subdivision State Finally, undisputed Plaintiff's claims accrued on June 25, 2006, and that the oneyear limitation period of section 95(A)(11) expired on June 25, 2007. Consequently, Plaintiff's state law claims against Walters, in his individual capacity, for negligence, respondeat superior, outrage, and assault and battery are barred by the statute of limitations as they were filed on October 28, 2008 more than one year after such claims accrued.3 It is unclear which, if any, of the state law claims are being asserted against Walters in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff does not specifically identify Walters in any of the state law claims, but rather, Plaintiff references "Defendants" throughout these allegations. Although some of these allegations would appear to either have no relevance to Walters (assault and battery) or fail to support an independent claim (respondeat superior), for purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court will assume that all state law claims are being asserted against all Defendants, including Walters.
3 2

Plaintiff's response to the statute of limitations issue is wholly uninformative as it fails to address the application of section 95(A)(11) to the state law claims. Plaintiff does not contest any of the elements for application of section 95(A)(11) to the facts at hand, but rather, he argues for the relation back of the state law claims to the timely filed section 1983 claims as 3

Plaintiff's assertion of state law claims against Walters in his official capacity are likewise barred as the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act ("OGTCA"), 51 O.S. § 151 et seq., provides state employees such as Walters with immunity for torts committed within the scope of their employment. 153(B) and 163(C). tort claims against the state of Oklahoma. 51 O.S. §§ The OGTCA is the exclusive method of bringing A review of the

Second Amended Complaint reveals that all allegations against Walters (to the extent they can be identified with any of the state law claims) are consistent with a claim against him for acts or omissions in connection with the performance of his assigned duties as an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer. party to any of the alleged state law claims: Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought to be established. In no instance shall an employee of the state or political subdivision acting within the scope of his employment be named as defendant . . . 51 O.S. § 163(C). the state law capacity. asserted in the original Complaint filed on June 11, 2008. This argument misses the mark, however, as Walters does not rely on the two-year limitation period of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(3), applicable to section 1983 claims. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522-24 (10th Cir. 1988). To the extent Plaintiff relies on the relation back doctrine with respect to the state law claims and application of section 95(A)(11), the Court concludes Plaintiff's claims are nonetheless barred as the one-year limitation period had run as of the filing of Plaintiff's original Complaint on June 11, 2008. 4 Thus, Walters is entitled to the dismissal of asserted against him in his official As a result, the State of Oklahoma, and not Walters, is the proper

claims

Plaintiff asserts claims under section 1983 against Walters, in his official capacity as an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer. Walters contends these official capacity claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. official in his The Court agrees. capacity is It is a well-settled rule merely another way of in section 1983 litigation that a damages suit against a state official pleading an action against the State. Kentucky v. Graham, 473

U.S. 159, 165 (1985); see also Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1988) (state officials sued in their official capacities are not "persons" for purposes of a § 1983 suit because the suit is against the official's office and not against the official). The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Although the language of the Amendment explicitly refers only to suits brought against a state by citizens of another state, it has long been interpreted to bar suits against a state by its own citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 21 (1890). This immunity, however, is enjoyed only by the state, its instrumentalities, and its officers in their official capacities. Mount Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977). Political subdivisions, such as counties and municipalities, do not enjoy such immunity. Id. See also Unified School Dist. No. 480 v. Epperson, 583 F.2d 1118, 1121-22 (10th Cir. 1978). The Oklahoma Highway Patrol ("OHP") is a division of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. As a component part of a state agency or department, the OHP is undoubtedly entitled to 5

immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. other political subdivision. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1525 and

The OHP is to be treated

as an arm of the State rather than as a municipal corporation or As an arm of the State, the OHP is See Meade v. (the Oklahoma General's (10th the Cir. 1988) clearly entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Department of Health, the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, Oklahoma Attorney office are all arms of the State of Oklahoma entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). against the State Consequently, Plaintiff's official capacity of Oklahoma with the concomitant Eleventh constitutional claims against Walters should be treated as claims Amendment restriction barring prosecution of those claims against Walters in his official capacity.4 Based outrage, individual finds that on and the foregoing and are reasons, the Court finds in that his of

Plaintiff's state law claims for negligence, respondeat superior, assault battery barred state by law against the Walters, capacity, one-year for statute

limitations of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(11). Plaintiff's claims

The Court also negligence,

respondeat superior, outrage, and assault and battery against Walters, in his official capacity, are subject to dismissal under the immunity provisions of the OGTCA. section 1983 against Walters are Finally, the Court finds barred by the Eleventh that Plaintiff's official capacity constitutional claims under Amendment. Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 66)

filed by Walters is granted, with the exception of Plaintiff's section 1983 claims against Walters in his individual capacity. Walters does not offer any basis for a dismissal of Plaintiff's section 1983 claims against him in his individual capacity. Consequently, those claims remain pending. 6
4

It is so ordered this 24th day of March, 2009.

7